M/s Hundustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. M/s Kaintal Auto Enterprises & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Consequently, revision is allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) CMNo.17296-CII of 2009 This application has been filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for exemption from filing the certified copies of Annexures. CR No.4204 of 2009 For the…
Judgment
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Anil Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Brar, Advocate, for Mr.R.K.Battas, Advocate, for the caveator/respondents. ---
Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?
To be referred to the Reporters or not?
Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) CMNo.17296-CII of 2009 This application has been filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for exemption from filing the certified copies of Annexures. CR No.4204 of 2009 For the reasons stated in the application, the prayer is granted. CM stands allowed. CR No.4204 of 2009 M/s Hundustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd./petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 15.6.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, on an application moved under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code). In a suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for specific performance of an agreement, the petitioner sought injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. The application was dismissed, and the order has attained finality.
The respondent/defendants moved an application for directing the petitioner herein to remove and take charge of all the equipments, fitting and fixtures of the plaintiff/petitioner company lying installed in the land, owned and possessed by defendant No.2. The application was allowed in view of the fact that the injunction application filed by the petitioner stood dismissed. This court in the case of Ram Chander and others Vs. Harbhajan Singh & Anr. 1986 PLJ 286 and Harbhajan Singh Vs. Kartar Singh 1998 (2) CCC 30 has been pleased to lay down, that there is no provision in the Code to entertain an application by the defendant, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. Relief which cannot be granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CR No.4204 of 2009 of the Code cannot be, therefore, by moving application under section 151 of the Code. It may further be noticed that the relief claimed by the respondent/defendants was in the nature of mandatory injunction, which is normally not granted except in a special circumstance where it is proved that a party has a prima facie case free from doubt and balance of convenience is also in favour of the party, and further irreparable loss is likely to be caused, if injunction is not granted.
Operative part
In the present case the relief under section 151 of the Code granted to defendant, in fact has resulted in non-suiting the plaintiff, though the relief sought in the plaint, is yet to be adjudicated and determined. Learned trial court, merely because application of the plaintiff/petitioner has been dismissed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 could not have invoked the jurisdiction under section 151 of the Code to grant relief to the defendants, which cannot be granted finally as there is no counter claim filed on behalf of the defendant. Relief which could not be finally granted, cannot be allowed by way of interim measure. The impugned order cannot be sustained. Consequently, revision is allowed. Order passed by the learned civil Judge (Sr.Division) is set aside and the application moved by the defendant/respondents under section 151 of the Code is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
29.07. 2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Consequently, revision is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 29 Jul 2009. The bench was VINOD K SHARMA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.